Store the Body Cap on camera or leave lens on camera?
Can't take a picture without the lens! The only time I would have a camera with the body cap attached rather than a lens would be if it is in long term storage (i.e., not my current camera of choice, but one that I am hanging on to for some reason - I have some film cameras stored that way) or I am in the process of shipping it off for repair or ???
Charles 46277 wrote:
I don't think feelings can be photographed, can they?
They can not, but they can be recreated by a memory jogged by a decent photograph.
It’s about time we fixed the sales tax inequity that had local stores penalized for being local while the internet suppliers had an automatic “discount”! I don’t like paying taxes any more than anyone else, but they are a part of life — a necessary part. So now, when you order through B&H or Adorama, or ..., your local and state governments will not be starved of the funds required to keep it going. Oh, and by the way, legally you were always responsible for those taxes, it was just that the internet store avoided the expense of collecting and remitting them (incidentally showing that automatic discount); you had the duty of calculating them yourself and remitting them directly to your state. (No, neither did I.)
I started in photography many years ago when there were camera stores on every corner in Chicago’s Loop, where I worked. (There were also pawn shops on every block where great values in used cameras could be had.) I found the sales people in those camera stores invaluable. Alas, there are only about three camera stores in all of central Chicago today, and yes I still love browsing in Central Camera, though I get there very seldom now.
I then spent a quarter century in New Jersey, where there were a lot of good camera stores, now nearly all gone. I worked briefly in Sandrian’s in Clinton which was a fine shop but alas went out of business about five years ago. But Pete Sandrian in discussing the demise of his business didn’t cite the internet competition as the primary cause, but rather the loss of the developing and printing business brought about by the digital age! Pete stated, “developing film and making prints were 50% of Sandrian’s business”.
Since returning to the Midwest, I have only a single local camera store within an hour, and they have not kept up with my needs, so I am forced to go on-line too often. For instance, I needed a new card reader but they just didn’t have any. And I have not been satisfied with their printing services and find myself using Costco. None-the-less, I do try to buy from them as much as possible.
I do have a favorite camera store though, back in New Jersey where I have family and visit once or twice a year: Unique Camera in Fairfield, New Jersey. It is a well stocked shop with knowledgeable sales personnel that are happy to show you all the latest gear. I recommend you drop in when you are in the area — they are on Route 46, but hard to spot, particularly if you are eastbound.
I had an older bachelor uncle who loved to record his travels on film - movies as well as stills. Right after the end of World War II (I was all of six years old), he gave me an Ansco box camera. I loved it, though I was very limited by the amount of film and processing my parents would spring for. Then, when I was eleven, I used the proceeds from my paper route to buy a camera very similar to the one shown by this threads originator, a folding Kodak with a flash gun. I loved that camera, though still very limited by the cost of film and processing. When exploring Yellowstone with that same bachelor uncle at the age of fourteen, I came away with some amazing images of a moose. But then light leaks made that camera useless. And I discovered girls, then A GIRL, then the business of making a living and raising a family, and photography was pushed way to the back of my priorities.
But, eventually things settled down and I rediscovered my interest in photography. First, a quality 35 mm rangefinder, then the need for greater control and interchangeable lenses brought me into the world of SLR's. I began exploring the world of developing and printing, and I discovered a Camera Club where I was exposed to many photographic talents, new techniques and views of the world around us. As my photographic abilities and interests grew, the world around us changed. The corporate job which had sustained my family disappeared, but my family was grown, and I was free to pursue my interests. I would briefly own a studio/lab - not a wise choice just as the world began switching from film to digital imaging, and then I would make my way as an "event photographer" (weddings, bar mitzvahs, retirements, graduations, family reunions, concerts, sports, et al), which I found to be the greatest way to make a living I could imagine. Not terribly lucrative, but very rewarding.
Today, happily retired, I find I have a grandchild interested in photography, and I am renewed once more.
A long time ago, shooting some film formats no longer available (think 620, etc.), I sent my exposed film off and was thrilled with whatever came back. Then I worked my way up to a quality 35 mm rangefinder, I began to think in terms of composition, but still relied on the drug store print service for the final product. Finally, I bought an SLR with interchangeable lenses and began to get serious. In addition to commercial prints, I began shooting slides for competition. Then I realized my viewfinder only showed 94% of the scene recorded on film! Disaster!
So someone pointed me towards Gepe (or is it GEPE?) slide mounts, and everything was beautiful. I was able for the first time to do my own cropping (within very tight limits). What a revelation! So I got into printing my own. Wow, look what I can do. Then I began shooting for others, which meant I had to pay a whole lot more attention to standard print sizes. Do you have any idea the problems created when you photograph a large group filling the frame, and the print size has a different aspect ratio? I shot school photos for a studio one year with a Mamiya RB (6 cm x 7 cm). For the studio production is everything; I mounted guides on the ground glass for the standard print sizes we used. And I shot some stuff with 8 x 10 and 4 x 5 large format cameras. Fantastic for 8 x 10 or 5 x 7 prints, a little less ideal for 5 x 7's.
And I shot sports. Thank heaven for zoom lenses, but a lot of shots were ruined by composing too tight. Or too loose! Then I went digital and I could crop everything in the computer before sending it out. I love that control. And with no film budget, overshoot and over edit. Today, I am again mostly shooting for myself, and I have enough pixels to allow me more latitude in cropping, and I use it. Shooting a landscape, allowing for possible changes in print dimensions, I compose pretty tight. Same for portraits under controlled conditions. But for grandchildren at play, I plan for more cropping in the computer.
I did not know what "negative space" was until I posted this image on this forum and was commended for good use of negative space!
Had to look it up.....
jj56, I think this is an excellent use of negative space! To study the use of negative space in portraiture, I would recommend viewing the extensive works of Yousaf Karsh, but Arnold Newman's1946 portrait of Igor Stravinsky stands by itself.
wj cody wrote:
the "big dog" was the leica m3 with the 50mm f2 summicron. nikon owners couldn't wait to save up enough to get one!
Eventually, even Leica offered an SLR. And often they were sold with a 50 mm lens.
Long, long ago (40-50 years), 35 mm cameras were the "big dogs" in photography. Everyone had to have one. And "top dog" in 35 mm cameras were the Single Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras, allowing "through the lens" (TTL) viewing, composing and focusing. And, at that time, lens design was slow, tedious, and problematical; but just about to get much easier and much better as lens designers began to utilize computers. The depth of the camera body had been established by the reflex mirror that is required to snap up out of the way to allow the light through to the film plane. This lent itself to a 50 mm lens focal length. Any shorter focal length required a "retro design" in order to allow that mirror the needed clearance distance - a more complicated and expensive design. Anything longer required more materials and a larger opening (to avoid a smaller, "slower" aperture) - more expense.
Thus 50 mm became the default "kit lens" focal length. Simple economics. Coincidentally, 50 mm is only slightly longer (50 mm versus 43 mm) than the diagonal of a 35 mm film frame, generally considered the approximation of the view of the human eye. So, much myth has grown up defending what was a simple economic decision.
Like many here, my first SLR lens was a 50 mm (Olympus OM series). Yes, it soon felt natural to view every thing in terms of that 50 mm lens. But as time went on, I developed a stable of lenses: 24 mm, 50 mm, 105 mm, and 200 mm. My “vision” evolved so that the 105 mm lens (a Kiron 105 mm Macro lens) became my walk around lens - it fit the way I saw the photographic world. I had friends who preferred the 50 mm, the 24 mm or 35 mm lens as their normal lens on their 35 mm film cameras. As I aged and my ability to focus quickly fell behind my photographic vision, a quarter century ago, I switched from Olympus to Nikon for their autofocus system. Nikon also had some excellent zoom lenses at that time, and I pretty much abandoned single focal length lenses for the flexibility of zooms! Today, for my particular version of photography, the "nifty-fifty" has limited utilitarian value; I will stick with my zooms and maybe a wide aperture 85 mm for it's bokeh, and a 105 mm macro lens.
With the Trump Administration removing protections for grizzlies in the area (I presume hunting is prohibited in the Park), we are going to see more grizzlies killed in the coming years. Damned shame!
A monopod is no tripod. But there are times when a monopod is the right answer. I spent many hours at sporting events shooting with a heavy telephoto supported by a monopod. Prevented arm strain from muscling that combination for hours, and helped steady the camera-lens combination as well. I found a stout monopod to be the best, not one that was a little wiggly, or might bend if I leaned too hard on it. I had an aluminum Manfrotto monopod for years; wore out the rubber foot on the bottom a couple of times - replaced it with a rubber chair leg foot picked up at a hardware store (they come in different diameters). Finally had to replace that monopod and bought another stout aluminum Manfrotto. Got the four section model so it could travel easier. I also have a lightweight carbon fiber tripod where the center post and one leg combine to become a monopod, but don't feel comfortable leaning on it. About those little feet thingies, I see no advantage in them.
As I understand it, "Lyme Disease", is a term that covers the afflictions from at least three different spirochetes spread by the deer tick. The most common is usually successfully treated by the preferred antibiotic protocol. The other two are not as easily treated. So when you hear of someone having long term problems it is likely they have one or more of the less common varieties, or more than one of them (even all three), or that they went an extended period of time before being treated. For those with one of the more virulent varieties, insurance companies have been known to be unsympathetic to extended antibiotic treatment. Be insistent!
Back in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, I knew several people, and one entire farm family, who were afflicted. Most were fine after the prescribed course of antibiotics, but a few had long term problems.
The best course is to not contract the disease. Use of "permethrin" on clothing, deet on exposed skin, tucking in the bottom of pants (use gators if you have them), and thorough body inspections when you get back are all recommended strategies, but none are guaranteed. I'm one of those lucky people who hasn't always had the sense to use all the recommended cautions, but been fortunate and have never been afflicted.
Does any one have an actual failure that the back up camera saved the day in the last recent years?
What was the issue and camera?
Film: Shooting a track meet my F100 quit (don't remember the exact diagnosis), but I was able to finish the assignment with an N8008 in my bag.
Digital: My D100 quit (shutter) on assignment, but I had bought a D70 as a second camera with another lens, so I was able to finish the job. On another assignment some time later, the shutter quit on the D70, but the (now repaired) D100 made finishing the job possible.
Before going pro: that N8008 that was my backup above, quit working on the backpacking trip of a lifetime with my recently discharged from the Army son, in the very damp climate of the Pacific Northwest. Fortunately, he was carrying a waterproof point and shoot I had given him while he was in the service, and we got once in a lifetime photos up near Mount Olympus and of sea stacks down on the coast.
Then there was the time my tripod "dropped" the RB67 on a school shoot, or the time my strobe light disassembled on another school shoot, ... If you use it, it will eventually fail!
I've taken over 380,000 photos within a 2 year period. That count seemed unbelievably high.
Two years, 730 days. 380,000/730 = 521 shots per day, day in, day out. Yes, unbelievably high!
I'm a guy who wore out two shutters (D100 & D70) shooting sports and social events. And I have had days where I shot well over 1000 images (multiple events) but I know I never averaged 500 + shots day after day! What are you shooting?
I have read that permethrin is very dangerous to cats. Thoughts? Keep clothes outside?
Interesting! As a cat owner, I will take this into consideration!
Deep Woods Off!!!
Deep Woods Off is 25% DEET! DEET is listed as the only "ACTIVE" ingrdient.
Tests on various insect repellents have pretty much confirmed the efficacy of DEET. Twenty-five years ago there were concerns about using DEET products on young children, but I believe these have been largely determined to be unfounded. Insect repellents containing other ingredients are available, but I don't believe they have been found to provide anywhere near the protection. There are other brands of repellent with similar concentrations of DEET that are as effective.